Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Al usar y seguir navegando por este sitio, estás aceptando su uso.
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Back to Squawk list
  • 32

Emirates A388 at JFK Dec 4th 2017 at about 200 feet in turn to runway 13L

There is some question on the actual altitude. ATC alerted flightcrew which initiated go around. How low would that put the lower wingtip? ( Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ms06877 3
It all comes down to AIRMANSHIP, no matter the size of the plane. And that approach requires just that.
To put this into perspective, 200 feet is a lot less than the wingspan on an A380.
Strange that the TWR needed to alert the crew, as if they would not have been acutely aware of all the parameters. Who do people think monitors at an airfield where there is no local ATC?? or there is a Tower, but ATC have gone home for the day...
taterhed1 1

yikes! I live about 18 miles from our major international airport ,but I am in the flight path..emirates used to fly very,very low over my home on approach to the airport,to the point the very large letters saying EMIRATES ,on the bottom of the aircraft was easily readable.i have not seen their planes for a while,so I don know if they still serve the airport near me...
Matt Mohr 1
Interesting that FlightAware has "Lost" all of the flight data for the flight. The arc traveled along with altitude and speed is not available. This is for all instances of this flight.
William Herron 2
Try tail number A6-EEU or UAE5KP.
TWA55 0
May be a matter of policy to pull radar data etc. for any incident or accident? I don't know if this meets the criteria for an incident (a MAP).I think that ATC requires crew explanation of the MAP which probably requires a report.
Roy Hunte 1
I reckon the lower wingtip would then have been anywhere between 175 to 190 feet above ground, give or take
steve jenney 1
well..i can remember some 25 or so years ago a delta flight ATL-JAX DC-9 I think..last flight of the day....heavy thunderstoms JAX...cockpit door open (yes I said that) heavy right turn on final...looked out the window and runway was 25 ft. from wingtip in bank..hit the ground so hard i thought my bridge was falling out of my mouth. Great flying guys!
TWA55 0
Not familiar with JFK, however, this sort of approach as it is described by a plane which in my view needs to set up a long approach for more reaction time should not be flown like a mid size jet. AS for ATC, I would suggest they review their procedures for super heavies in such busy airspace and in an area of potential heavy loss of life should an accident occur. Their is no excuse for treating this plane like a sports car. 200ft AGL, wow
William Herron 1
It is not Air Traffic Control's responsibility to decide if a given aircraft is capable of flying a given approach. Aircraft are cleared to the current approach in use. If the pilot in command can't execute that approach, he's expected to say as much and another approach will be given.

Emirates may want to consider rejecting the Canarsie approach, or may want to provide additional training to their aircrews. But ATC doesn't need to "review their procedures" on this matter. Canarsie is not a new approach, and thousands of aircraft of all sizes have flown it successfully.

Don't drag ATC into this. The pilots screwed up.


¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!